Years ago I had a very unfortunate and unpleasant experience when I
completed
a written evaluation of my administrative assistant. When I sat down
with her to discuss what I had written, it became a major upset.

She thought things were going very well—and they were—but she couldn't
handle hearing about things that WEREN'T going so well. I was
flabbergasted, she was hurt and angry, and we never had a good
relationship after that.

My mistake was that it had been too long between evals. I also didn't
bring up issues as they happened. My flawed thinking was that they
weren't a big deal, and they could be addressed at her formal
evaluation.

My personal feeling is that evaluations should be ongoing. I subscribe
to having regular conversations about what's working, what's not working
and what's next.

And the dialog should be BOTH ways. A subordinate should be sharing what
the "boss" is doing that's helpful and the things they're doing that
aren't helpful.

There's nothing wrong with formal evaluations at 6-month or 12-month
intervals, but there shouldn't be any surprises for either party when
they do occur.

It's important for a supervisor to stay open to feedback as to how they operate and how
it affects the team. And there should be a process for this to happen.

My personal experience has taught me it's usually system failures
and not people failures that result in poor performance.

Action PointLike any relationship, it comes down to communication. Keep it open,
keep it honest, keep it safe, and the relationship will work.

Make sure your systems support good communication and your
objectives are clear. And make sure your evaluation process is ongoing,
doesn't create surprises and works both ways.